Mercedes Benz gains level 3 autopilot computer driving in Nevada. A first.

[Canon Shooter]

BTW I can turn on the morning drive time radio and hear about some idiot who crashed his car every day in every major/minor city in the country. Likely in the morning and afternoon. Planes crash essentially never.

How many automobiles are crowding the highways, compared to the the number of airplanes crowding the airspace.

Your comparison is really pretty stupid...

 

[Canon Shooter]

When is the last time you heard of anything of that sort happening?

Pretty recently, actually.

Back in 2019, Boeing's 737 MAX was grounded worldwide after a malfunctioning flight control system caused two fatal crashes.

Lion Air Flight 610 crashed in Indonesia on October 29, 2018, and ) and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed in Ethiopa on March 10, 2019.

All 346 people from both flights were killed...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Basically all commercial airplanes are flown by computer. How often to planes fall out of the sky due to computer crash?

That's what you have trained pilots for. When something goes screwy with a computer, they take over. It won't make the news so we have no idea of how often it happens.

It's just like with the autonomous trucks they came out with. You still need a licensed CDL driver in the truck for when the computer screws up. Now, I've never been in a fully computerized truck, but the trucks I drove did have several computer systems in there and they are in the shop all the time for the computer getting messed up.

 

[Couchpotato]

But they are. That's the point.

The last time I traveled by train (a little over a year ago) the train was sold out; berthing cars, family rooms, everything. So, yeah, I don't know what other proof I would need to know that you're wrong...



No, you probably haven't.

And I still haven't met that person...

Then why does AMTRAK need government assistance to stay afloat?

 

[Couchpotato]

Where a computer loses is when it comes to caution. I can spot a drunk driver.

No you can’t. You have spotted what you assume was a drunk driver and you may have been correct but you don’t know and you don’t spot all of them. Also if computers were driving all the cars there’d be no drunk drivers to spot.

A computer can't. I can see a deer on the side of the road a quarter mile up and can prepare myself in the event that deer chooses suicide.

Why wouldn’t a computer be able to see that? I can input as many sensors into a computer as I want.

A computer can't. I can see a little kid run behind a parked car and can prepare for the kid to jump out in front of me. A car can't.

Again why couldnt it? Because you dont grasp how it could?

While I understand the premise of autonomous vehicles, I do not agree with it...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No you can’t. You have spotted what you assume was a drunk driver and you may have been correct but you don’t know and you don’t spot all of them. Also if computers were driving all the cars there’d be no drunk drivers to spot.




Why wouldn’t a computer be able to see that? I can input as many sensors into a computer as I want.



Again why couldnt it? Because you dont grasp how it could?

It reminds me of a debate I got into when somebody was saying the same stuff about trucks, that they could drive themselves. I pointed out to something that happened to me a few years back. I pulled up to a stop light where some kids were hanging around at a bus stop. Like young boys do, they like to show their courage by doing stupid stuff, and they were running back and forth underneath my trailer. A computerized truck would not have known that and just went forward when the light turned green. Before I moved I took my foot off the break and put it back on a few times because the noise scared them away.

I agree with Cannon Shooter, a computer will not be able to do what a human does when out on the road. Like the example given, you see a kid crouched behind a parked car and can make judgements that a computer can't make. Okay, so you have some sort of magical sensor that can detect that. What that means is every time somebody goes to their car or take a few steps into the road to cross the street, your car would be coming to a dead stop because a computer would never be able to decipher between a 9 year old kid and a pedestrian simply trying to get as close to traffic as possible to cross the street when the opportunity presents itself.

I got a new truck one time and it had a radar on it. The truck didn't come with the option of turning it on and off. Anytime I got 150 feet to a vehicle in front of me, the truck would automatically slow down if I was on cruise control, or if I wasn't using it, would be beeping like all hell. It drove me nuts because you need to get close to the truck in front of you to set up passing it without blocking the fast lane for a long time.

Finally I had it. I got some aluminum foil and Gorilla tape and wrapped it around that stupid thing, and never had a problem again.

 

[Couchpotato]

It reminds me of a debate I got into when somebody was saying the same stuff about trucks, that they could drive themselves. I pointed out to something that happened to me a few years back. I pulled up to a stop light where some kids were hanging around at a bus stop. Like young boys do, they like to show their courage by doing stupid stuff, and they were running back and forth underneath my trailer. A computerized truck would not have known that and just went forward when the light turned green. Before I moved I took my foot off the break and put it back on a few times because the noise scared them away.

I agree with Cannon Shooter, a computer will not be able to do what a human does when out on the road. Like the example given, you see a kid crouched behind a parked car and can make judgements that a computer can't make. Okay, so you have some sort of magical sensor that can detect that. What that means is every time somebody goes to their car or take a few steps into the road to cross the street, your car would be coming to a dead stop because a computer would never be able to decipher between a 9 year old kid and a pedestrian simply trying to get as close to traffic as possible to cross the street when the opportunity presents itself.

why? Why wouldnt it? Why wouldn’t a self driven car have sensors all around it that would constantly monitor all objects around the vehicle. The backup camera in my wife’s car now gives a top down view of the car parsed together from multiple sensors all around the vehicle.

I got a new truck one time and it had a radar on it. The truck didn't come with the option of turning it on and off. Anytime I got 150 feet to a vehicle in front of me, the truck would automatically slow down if I was on cruise control, or if I wasn't using it, would be beeping like all hell. It drove me nuts because you need to get close to the truck in front of you to set up passing it without blocking the fast lane for a long time. Finally I had it. I got some aluminum foil and Gorilla tape and wrapped it around that stupid thing, and never had a problem again

what is this story supposed to prove? If it’s that a computer can’t sense objects in front of a vehicle its a bad story.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

why? Why wouldnt it? Why wouldn’t a self driven car have sensors all around it that would constantly monitor all objects around the vehicle. The backup camera in my wife’s car now gives a top down view of the car parsed together from multiple sensors all around the vehicle.

Because a computer can only do what it's programmed to do. You can't teach it logic. A computer would never be able to tell the difference between a child ready to run out in front of your car and an adult simply trying to cross the street. All it could sense is that if a person is there, the vehicle comes to a stop.

what is this story supposed to prove? If it’s that a computer can’t sense objects in front of a vehicle its a bad story.

What the story proves is that the radar had no way of determining I need to get as close to the vehicle in front of me as I can to setup a pass. Again, all it does is what it was designed to do, not allow you to get within X amount of distance to the vehicle in front of you before takes over your cruise control, or starts with the warning signals that increase the closer you get to the vehicle. In bad weather the last thing I needed disrupting my concentration was that stupid thing going off.

Rear view cameras are a good idea because it's telling the human driver what's going on so they can decide how far or close to get to something behind you like another parked car. There are no disadvantages to having that camera there.

 

[Couchpotato]

Because a computer can only do what it's programmed to do. You can't teach it logic. A computer would never be able to tell the difference between a child ready to run out in front of your car and an adult simply trying to cross the street. All it could sense is that if a person is there, the vehicle comes to a stop.

You're mistaken. You realize that the "judgement" you're talking about is just an algorithm your brain is running based on your experience. It's really not that different than what a computer would do in that situation. The only difference being that the computer would have the advantage of the have the experience of every driver, (or as many as we cared to input) with perfect recollection.

What the story proves is that the radar had no way of determining I need to get as close to the vehicle in front of me as I can to setup a pass. Again, all it does is what it was designed to do, not allow you to get within X amount of distance to the vehicle in front of you before takes over your cruise control, or starts with the warning signals that increase the closer you get to the vehicle. In bad weather the last thing I needed disrupting my concentration was that stupid thing going off.

It's doing exactly what it was supposed to do. It wasn't designed to do anything else. Just because you found it annoying doesn't mean it wasn't operating as intended. That's like getting pissed off at a pencil because it wont cook you dinner.

Rear view cameras are a good idea because it's telling the human driver what's going on so they can decide how far or close to get to something behind you like another parked car. There are no disadvantages to having that camera there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's doing exactly what it was supposed to do. It wasn't designed to do anything else. Just because you found it annoying doesn't mean it wasn't operating as intended. That's like getting pissed off at a pencil because it wont cook you dinner.

Correct, all it was doing is what it was designed to do. It couldn't think, it couldn't logic, it couldn't understand that I want to get close enough to the vehicle in front of me to pass it as quickly as possible without blocking the passing lane for other motorists. It's what all computers do.

You're mistaken. You realize that the "judgement" you're talking about is just an algorithm your brain is running based on your experience. It's really not that different than what a computer would do in that situation. The only difference being that the computer would have the advantage of the have the experience of every driver, (or as many as we cared to input) with perfect recollection.

Algorithms cannot replace human thought processes. They are not the same thing. As a former professional driver with a lifetime of experience, you can trust me when I say a computer (at least in our time) will never replace human logic. Like anything else, it has it's advantages and disadvantages.

As I stated earlier, when all the bugs are worked out, it would be great for party people who want to get intoxicated anywhere else but home. It would be great for people like my 87 year old mother that never drove a car before, or my 91 year old father who's driving skills are greatly diminished. It would be great for bad drivers that hate driving and are terrible at it, and trust me, I've seen plenty of those in my career. But they are not for everybody.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Then why does AMTRAK need government assistance to stay afloat?

Fuck if I know, but that's not what I was addressing.

Saying that no one travels by rail is simply incorrect...

 

[Canon Shooter]

No you can’t. You have spotted what you assume was a drunk driver and you may have been correct but you don’t know and you don’t spot all of them. Also if computers were driving all the cars there’d be no drunk drivers to spot.

Well, that's just fucking brilliant...

Why wouldn’t a computer be able to see that? I can input as many sensors into a computer as I want.

Sure you can. And that'll result in a far more expensive car that people won't want to buy...

Again why couldnt it? Because you dont grasp how it could?

How is a computer going to differentiate between a little kid and a tree stump on the side of the road?

As I said, I understand the premise of autonomous vehicles. They're for lazy people, or for people who are too fucking stupid to learn how to drive. Which raises another question: If a person has a cvar which drives itself, does that person need a driver's license? Why or why not?

And everything else aside, I promise you, driving my '69 Charger is a Helluva lot more fun that going for a ride in a car that drives itself:

I find it interesting that you've avoided answering my question three times. I'll try it a fourth:

When an accident occurs (and it's ignorant to believe that accidents won't happen), and the cause of the accident is traced to a malfunctioning computer, where does the blame fall? Who's the sorry bastard who's going to be sued?

Oh, and I also noticed that you ignored my post regarding the 737 MAX airplanes which suffered computer malfunctions, killing several hundred people...

 

[Couchpotato]

Well, that's just fucking brilliant...



Sure you can. And that'll result in a far more expensive car that people won't want to buy...

Get your excuses straight. I thought the argument was it couldn't do these things, not that it could but it would be too expensive.

How is a computer going to differentiate between a little kid and a tree stump on the side of the road?

The same way you do moron. The only reason you know is based on experience. When you see something your brain runs an algorithm based on your experience that lets you know what you're seeing. The same with a computer. The advant

As I said, I understand the premise of autonomous vehicles. They're for lazy people, or for people who are too fucking stupid to learn how to drive.

The same can be said of anyone who owns a car and drives it. It's just for people to lazy to walk. So when you sell your car and walk your fat ass everywhere you want to go I'll accept that as a reason self driving cars shouldnt exist. Until then this is a stupid, inane argument.

Which raises another question: If a person has a cvar which drives itself, does that person need a driver's license? Why or why not?

Not sure why this has anything to do with whether a self driven car is a viable thing or not. Whether or not the "driver" of the car would need a license is a bureaucratic/legislative question. There's no "NEED" for anyone to have a license now. My license has little to do with my driving aptitude. If I took away your license would that affect your actual driving ability in any way? When we issue licenses to 16 year olds does it improve their driving ability? Of course not.

And everything else aside, I promise you, driving my '69 Charger is a Helluva lot more fun that going for a ride in a car that drives itself:

View attachment 746471

And?

I find it interesting that you've avoided answering my question three times. I'll try it a fourth:

When an accident occurs (and it's ignorant to believe that accidents won't happen), and the cause of the accident is traced to a malfunctioning computer, where does the blame fall? Who's the sorry bastard who's going to be sued?

Oh, and I also noticed that you ignored my post regarding the 737 MAX airplanes which suffered computer malfunctions, killing several hundred people...

I didnt respond because I didnt see it. I dont find what you post nearly as interesting as you clearly think I do. Again this is a bureaucratic issue that has nothing to do with whether self driving cars are viable. That said there would be a complete and unbiased record of exactly what happened at any accident unlike our current system. So determining "who" was at fault would be rather simple. How the insurance industry or legislators decide to parse that out has zero to do with whether or not self driven cars are viable.

 

[Couchpotato]

Fuck if I know, but that's not what I was addressing.

Saying that no one travels by rail is simply incorrect...

Really? You cant make the connection between AMTRAK's inability to meet it's basic operational costs let alone turn a profit (it is a for profit entity after all) and its popularity/viability as a business?

BTW there isnt a single passenger rail service on the planet that operates without governmental handouts. You know because it's so POPULAR.

How Amtrak Makes Money

Last year, Amtrak transported 31.7 million Americans. However, the rail company relies on government subsidies and faces significant challenges ahead.

www.investopedia.com

"
Amtrak receives considerable subsidies from both state and federal governments but is managed as a for-profit company. This is not unusual. No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without public support.


That said, Amtrak’s “for-profit” status is sadly ironic. The train company has never been profitable since its founding nearly fifty years ago. It is only thanks to its subsidies, which over the years amount to over $45 billion, that the provider has survived."

 

[Couchpotato]

Correct, all it was doing is what it was designed to do. It couldn't think, it couldn't logic, it couldn't understand that I want to get close enough to the vehicle in front of me to pass it as quickly as possible without blocking the passing lane for other motorists. It's what all computers do.

You're standing at the bottom of a set of stairs bitching that they dont act like an escalator.

Algorithms cannot replace human thought processes. They are not the same thing. As a former professional driver with a lifetime of experience, you can trust me when I say a computer (at least in our time) will never replace human logic. Like anything else, it has it's advantages and disadvantages.

As I stated earlier, when all the bugs are worked out, it would be great for party people who want to get intoxicated anywhere else but home. It would be great for people like my 87 year old mother that never drove a car before, or my 91 year old father who's driving skills are greatly diminished. It would be great for bad drivers that hate driving and are terrible at it, and trust me, I've seen plenty of those in my career. But they are not for everybody.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Get your excuses straight. I thought the argument was it couldn't do these things, not that it could but it would be too expensive.

I was referring to the part where you talked about putting sensors onto/into cars. More sensors equals a higher price...

The same way you do moron. The only reason you know is based on experience. When you see something your brain runs an algorithm based on your experience that lets you know what you're seeing. The same with a computer. The advant

You end a paragraph with "The advant" and have the audacity to call someone a moron?

You're a fucking idiot...

The same can be said of anyone who owns a car and drives it. It's just for people to lazy to walk. So when you sell your car and walk your fat ass everywhere you want to go I'll accept that as a reason self driving cars shouldnt exist. Until then this is a stupid, inane argument.

Well, considering you're both stupid and inane, it's quite appropriate...

Not sure why this has anything to do with whether a self driven car is a viable thing or not. Whether or not the "driver" of the car would need a license is a bureaucratic/legislative question. There's no "NEED" for anyone to have a license now. My license has little to do with my driving aptitude. If I took away your license would that affect your actual driving ability in any way? When we issue licenses to 16 year olds does it improve their driving ability? Of course not.

My apologies, but I rarely deal in the hypothetical.

If a person isn't driving the car, does he technically need a driver's license?

You can't answer that because you haven't had the foresight to actually think this through...

And?

Never mind...

I didnt respond because I didnt see it. I dont find what you post nearly as interesting as you clearly think I do.

You responded to other comments of mine in the post in where I asked the question.

If you're going to resort to stupidly trying to lie, let me know now so I can not waste any more time on you...

Again this is a bureaucratic issue that has nothing to do with whether self driving cars are viable. That said there would be a complete and unbiased record of exactly what happened at any accident unlike our current system. So determining "who" was at fault would be rather simple. How the insurance industry or legislators decide to parse that out has zero to do with whether or not self driven cars are viable.

If it's simple, please explain it.

But you can't, can you?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Really? You cant make the connection between AMTRAK's inability to meet it's basic operational costs let alone turn a profit (it is a for profit entity after all) and its popularity/viability as a business?

Of course I can, but that's not what I was discussing...

BTW there isnt a single passenger rail service on the planet that operates without governmental handouts.

And your point would be what, exactly?

You know because it's so POPULAR.

Again, the last time I rode the train on a trip, it was sold out. That does not suggest, as you would like us to believe, that rail travel is unpopular. It's just not as popular as air travel...

Amtrak receives considerable subsidies from both state and federal governments but is managed as a for-profit company. This is not unusual. No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without public support.


That said, Amtrak’s “for-profit” status is sadly ironic. The train company has never been profitable since its founding nearly fifty years ago. It is only thanks to its subsidies, which over the years amount to over $45 billion, that the provider has survived."

You keep coming back to this whole "subsidies" thing, when that's not what's being discussed. The discussion is about the popularity of train travel. It's popular. It always has been. But you would do well to be more honest. You whine and bitch and moan about rail subsidies while conveniently ignoring the fact that the government subsidizes airlines, too.

Do more people fly? Of course. But they fly because they're only focused on the destination. Smart people focus on the trip...

 

[Canon Shooter]

When is the last time you heard of anything of that sort happening?

And when the jets work perfectly fine, the infrastructure fails:

All US Flights Grounded

The idea, in theory, might make sense, but the practical application of it is a pipe dream. It can't be done. Every single mile of every single road in every single state in this country would have to be retrofitted with a system to track every single car on every single road in every single state in this country.

And, if we consider for a moment that it's actually a sound and safe idea (which it's really not), a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and there will still be cars out there which need to be driven by a person.

Those two factors kill the viability of the idea...

 

[Couchpotato]

And when the jets work perfectly fine, the infrastructure fails:

All US Flights Grounded

The idea, in theory, might make sense, but the practical application of it is a pipe dream. It can't be done. Every single mile of every single road in every single state in this country would have to be retrofitted with a system to track every single car on every single road in every single state in this country.

And, if we consider for a moment that it's actually a sound and safe idea (which it's really not), a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and there will still be cars out there which need to be driven by a person.

Those two factors kill the viability of the idea...

What's hilarious about this conversation is you expect the computer system to be flawless 100% of the time without error or delay ever. But are willing to overlook the obvious shortcomings of human drivers.

 

[Canon Shooter]

What's hilarious about this conversation is you expect the computer system to be flawless 100% of the time without error or delay ever. But are willing to overlook the obvious shortcomings of human drivers.

Um, maybe you're just not paying attention, but you're the one who's touting the infallibility of computers, not me.

And I've not once overlook the shortcomings of drivers. I'm just smart enough to know that the solution doesn't lie in the completely opposite end of the spectrum...